muscle loss and calorie deficits

michellekicks

This is a great thread, very informative.

I'm currently cutting down and trying to shed some fat while retaining as much of my current LBM as possible. Since starting two months ago, I've gone up on all of my lifts and some of them significantly. This is all while on a 20% deficit, lifting 4 times a week, and eating around 150-175g of protein daily (current weight of 203 lbs).

Now I've read where you can get stronger, able to lift more, but not actually gain any mass. Is this true? If so how does that work? Seems like some of you folks on here are pretty knowledgeable and might have some ideas.

Strength gains are neuromuscular adaptations and don't require extra muscle tissue to be built (to an extent) to continue to see gains. So, you can go quite far in strength increases even at a modest deficit. As I understand, you will have an idea max potential for strength at a given level of muscle tissue. After that you'd need new tissue to gain more strength (i.e. the more muscle you have, the stronger you *could* get). But I've seen guys who look super average who pull and squat HUGE weights.

Look at progressive strength training with low reps on your compound lifts.

QuietBloom

There's only so much lifting heavy with a surplus of protein can accomplish in sparing lean mass under a semi-starvation diet. In its simplicity, ones starting body fat percentage and magnitude of deficit are two key variables. As mrsbigmack mentioned, Lyle speaks about how initial body fat percentage as a primary determinant in P-ratio in regards to surpluses and deficits. When I did a self-imposed semi-starvation diet years ago, I estimated a loss of 12 lbs fat mass vs 8 lbs lean mass when assuming a 10-week, 1800 net calorie deficit from 3000 maintenance needs.

OMG. You really ARE a geek!

chrisdavey

Very interesting discussion to me.



I'm 6'3" and currently at 289 down from a peak weight of approx 350 +/-. Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.

Don't know what my numbers were when I was at 350+ but I guess that my bf% at that time must have exceeded 40% or more.

Was setting goals to get myself back in the 200# range but after this test it has me thinking a better goal would be to concentrate more on lowering bf% down in to the 12-15% range rather than an arbitrary scale #.

What do folk think might be a realistic scenario for a goal. Don't imagine that it is realistic to try and keep all 203#'s of that lbm but it would be great to hold on to as big a % as possible while dumping fat.

I intend to add more strength training in to my repetoire.

Not a lot of formal lifting in routine at the moment but I am constantly lifting heavy stuff on a pretty much regular basis just in my daily activities around our ranch (clearing brush, chainsaw work, cutting trees, tossing logs, etc, not to mention the activities around remodeling and building our house).

Other cardio comes from swimming and water polo.

My understanding is adequate protein intake in a deficit is more important than weight training specifically, especially if your daily life is very active and includes heavy labor as yours does. If you keep to at least 200g protein daily and a modest deficit of 15-20% of overall TDEE, you should be able to maintain most of that LBM, which will put you MILES ahead of the game once you're at a healthy BF level.

I would disagree with that. I believe that resistance training is more important than getting adequate protein in a deficit for the purpose of LBM retention. (although if you have an active job then that could help a little) My own results had adequate protein throughout but no RT and despite no dexa scan I can assure there was a lot of LBM lost. Took me the last 3-4 years to get it all back again too.

Perfect world, do both and don't worry about it though. (wish I knew that then)

Hadabetter

It matters because fat can only be "burned" (converted and used) at a rate of roughly 31.4 calories per pound per day, so even if you are doing other things right if the deficit can't be serviced fast enough using fat then the body has to use other things.

I misread the post.

MrGonzo05

Caloric intake has a direct effect on gym performance. That's why I make sure to drink beer.

Hadabetter

This is a great thread, very informative.

I'm currently cutting down and trying to shed some fat while retaining as much of my current LBM as possible. Since starting two months ago, I've gone up on all of my lifts and some of them significantly. This is all while on a 20% deficit, lifting 4 times a week, and eating around 150-175g of protein daily (current weight of 203 lbs).

Now I've read where you can get stronger, able to lift more, but not actually gain any mass. Is this true? If so how does that work? Seems like some of you folks on here are pretty knowledgeable and might have some ideas.

Truth

Strength gains are neuromuscular adaptations and don't require extra muscle tissue to be built (to an extent) to continue to see gains. So, you can go quite far in strength increases even at a modest deficit. As I understand, you will have an idea max potential for strength at a given level of muscle tissue. After that you'd need new tissue to gain more strength (i.e. the more muscle you have, the stronger you *could* get). But I've seen guys who look super average who pull and squat HUGE weights.

Look at progressive strength training with low reps on your compound lifts.

michellekicks

Very interesting discussion to me.



I'm 6'3" and currently at 289 down from a peak weight of approx 350 +/-. Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.

Don't know what my numbers were when I was at 350+ but I guess that my bf% at that time must have exceeded 40% or more.

Was setting goals to get myself back in the 200# range but after this test it has me thinking a better goal would be to concentrate more on lowering bf% down in to the 12-15% range rather than an arbitrary scale #.

What do folk think might be a realistic scenario for a goal. Don't imagine that it is realistic to try and keep all 203#'s of that lbm but it would be great to hold on to as big a % as possible while dumping fat.

I intend to add more strength training in to my repetoire.

Not a lot of formal lifting in routine at the moment but I am constantly lifting heavy stuff on a pretty much regular basis just in my daily activities around our ranch (clearing brush, chainsaw work, cutting trees, tossing logs, etc, not to mention the activities around remodeling and building our house).

Other cardio comes from swimming and water polo.

My understanding is adequate protein intake in a deficit is more important than weight training specifically, especially if your daily life is very active and includes heavy labor as yours does. If you keep to at least 200g protein daily and a modest deficit of 15-20% of overall TDEE, you should be able to maintain most of that LBM, which will put you MILES ahead of the game once you're at a healthy BF level.

I would disagree with that. I believe that resistance training is more important than getting adequate protein in a deficit for the purpose of LBM retention. (although if you have an active job then that could help a little) My own results had adequate protein throughout but no RT and despite no dexa scan I can assure there was a lot of LBM lost. Took me the last 3-4 years to get it all back again too.

Perfect world, do both and don't worry about it though. (wish I knew that then)

I can concede that "more important" was a poor choice of words. What I should have said was "still valuable". Adequate protein alone can negate some of the detrimental effects of caloric deficits e.g. Muscle loss, even in the absence of resistance training.

But yeah, do both

FitterBody

Bump to read later

55in13

One question I have is if/how you can determine how much LBM loss is muscle loss. In my case, I think I lost about 42 pounds of fat and 13 pounds that was not fat. When I post those numbers, I often get jumped on by advocates of slower loss and/or more resistance training that say I lost 13 pounds of muscle. I don't think I did. There are other components of "not fat"; I hesitate to even call that all LBM because I assume water doesn't count as fat. When you lose around a quarter of body weight, some water loss is permanent because you are no longer as large of a vessel.

SkinnyBubbaGaar

Thanks for the replies and, yes, I believe that the best course of action will be to increase both resistance work and protein intake.

The hydro body comp test was interesting to me and the data gave me some good insight as well. Before the test I was focusing more on the goal of wanting to get myself down in to the 190-200# range.

In my prime athlete/college days I was around 205# but in top condition from swimming/rowing.

Now with the body comp data showing that there currently is 203#'s of lean mass underneath all the blubber, it makes me realize that maybe that 190-200# range is not the best goal.

Certainly want to lose a good percentage of bf but if I am to maintain a good number of the lean mass than clearly the ultimate weight might be 10 or 15 pounds above 200.

Shows how much the BMI charts are whacked. BMI chart at 6'3" doesn't have me hitting the "healthy" range until I would get under 199#'s. Doing that math, I'd need to lose about 25-30#'s of lean mass along with the fat and have my body fat % down in the 10-15% range. I'm game for working on getting the bf % down, but hopefully that won't mean having to drop 30#'s of lean mass along with the fat in order to hit that level.

Time will tell, I guess.

Curious thing about BMI is that I also noticed that the low end range for "healthy" status on a 6'3" frame is coming in at 149 #'s before dropping in to the "underweight" category.

Holy crap, I'd look like I'd just come out of a POW camp at level.

I would disagree with that. I believe that resistance training is more important than getting adequate protein in a deficit for the purpose of LBM retention. (although if you have an active job then that could help a little) My own results had adequate protein throughout but no RT and despite no dexa scan I can assure there was a lot of LBM lost. Took me the last 3-4 years to get it all back again too.

Perfect world, do both and don't worry about it though. (wish I knew that then)

I can concede that "more important" was a poor choice of words. What I should have said was "still valuable". Adequate protein alone can negate some of the detrimental effects of caloric deficits e.g. Muscle loss, even in the absence of resistance training.

But yeah, do both

willdob3

Excellent topic. Great discussion.

sebshaw8

skimmed it. very interesting. I want to read it in more depth later.

55in13

Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.

I wonder how these numbers are really supposed to correlate. You were told 30.12% BF and can calculate that. But of the weight that isn't fat, how much is truly LBM? Does water count? Whatever is in your digestive tract? Skin? If you lose 100#, you will end up with a smaller body that holds less water, less skin (maybe not right away) and less connective tissue. I don't think that the 203# you calculate of "not fat" is completely composed of things that need to be retained. But how much of it is?

jpolinisse

I'm interested in following this discussion.

cdahl383

This is a great thread, very informative.

I'm currently cutting down and trying to shed some fat while retaining as much of my current LBM as possible. Since starting two months ago, I've gone up on all of my lifts and some of them significantly. This is all while on a 20% deficit, lifting 4 times a week, and eating around 150-175g of protein daily (current weight of 203 lbs).

Now I've read where you can get stronger, able to lift more, but not actually gain any mass. Is this true? If so how does that work? Seems like some of you folks on here are pretty knowledgeable and might have some ideas.

Strength gains are neuromuscular adaptations and don't require extra muscle tissue to be built (to an extent) to continue to see gains. So, you can go quite far in strength increases even at a modest deficit. As I understand, you will have an idea max potential for strength at a given level of muscle tissue. After that you'd need new tissue to gain more strength (i.e. the more muscle you have, the stronger you *could* get). But I've seen guys who look super average who pull and squat HUGE weights.

Look at progressive strength training with low reps on your compound lifts.

Thanks for the info! So my muscles are getting smarter, very cool! Makes sense to me. I guess while I cut down I'll try to keep the lifts up to retain as much as possible and then once I get to my desired bodyfat % I'll start bulking slowly and try to add some muscle on top of what I have. Looks to be a difficult long slow process but that's usually how things worthwhile are.

jacksonpt

Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.

I wonder how these numbers are really supposed to correlate. You were told 30.12% BF and can calculate that. But of the weight that isn't fat, how much is truly LBM? Does water count? Whatever is in your digestive tract? Skin? If you lose 100#, you will end up with a smaller body that holds less water, less skin (maybe not right away) and less connective tissue. I don't think that the 203# you calculate of "not fat" is completely composed of things that need to be retained. But how much of it is?

Are you merely curious, or is there a good reason to try to differentiate actual muscle loss vs everything else that constitutes LBM?

55in13

Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.

I wonder how these numbers are really supposed to correlate. You were told 30.12% BF and can calculate that. But of the weight that isn't fat, how much is truly LBM? Does water count? Whatever is in your digestive tract? Skin? If you lose 100#, you will end up with a smaller body that holds less water, less skin (maybe not right away) and less connective tissue. I don't think that the 203# you calculate of "not fat" is completely composed of things that need to be retained. But how much of it is?

Are you merely curious, or is there a good reason to try to differentiate actual muscle loss vs everything else that constitutes LBM?

I think we compare against the wrong number. If you are looking at losing a lot of weight, I think losing some "not fat" along with the fat is unavoidable. Some of it is even beneficial; you don't need the extra skin and connecting tissue.

The flip side is that I think it can lead to setting goals like the previous poster is considering. When he gets down around 200 and does another BF% check, he will likely find that he can adjust the goal lower because he will not lose only fat. But losing some "not fat" is not failure. I wish I had a handle on what a reasonable expectation is.

jacksonpt

Recently did a hydrostatic body comp test and the results showed me at 30.12 bf% with lbm @ 203#'s and fat at 87#'s.

I wonder how these numbers are really supposed to correlate. You were told 30.12% BF and can calculate that. But of the weight that isn't fat, how much is truly LBM? Does water count? Whatever is in your digestive tract? Skin? If you lose 100#, you will end up with a smaller body that holds less water, less skin (maybe not right away) and less connective tissue. I don't think that the 203# you calculate of "not fat" is completely composed of things that need to be retained. But how much of it is?

Are you merely curious, or is there a good reason to try to differentiate actual muscle loss vs everything else that constitutes LBM?

I think we compare against the wrong number. If you are looking at losing a lot of weight, I think losing some "not fat" along with the fat is unavoidable. Some of it is even beneficial; you don't need the extra skin and connecting tissue.

The flip side is that I think it can lead to setting goals like the previous poster is considering. When he gets down around 200 and does another BF% check, he will likely find that he can adjust the goal lower because he will not lose only fat. But losing some "not fat" is not failure. I wish I had a handle on what a reasonable expectation is.

Gotcha. And I agree.

I think that's one of the big reasons there is so much re-evaluating going on. People can make reasonable estimates and set reasonable goals, but then adjust things as they get close and have a clearer sense of where they are compared to where they want to be.

SkinnyBubbaGaar

Total agreement that all of that 203# of LBM is certainly not muscle. Just trying to wrap my brain around what actually would be a good goal weight in the end while evicting the fat and keeping as much muscle in place. Also agree that some of that LBM will also go as well, but want to have some strategy in place to not have the loss be coming from more muscle than necessary.

I do maintain, however, that BMI is pretty much a faulty litmus test. To hit the "healthy" BMI range I'd have to get under 199"s at my height. The rowing picture in my photos is from college over 25 years ago. I was probably in the 11-13% bf range at that juncture (perhaps even less) and my weight was in the 205-215 range. According to BMI I was fat.

I certainly got fat in the years afterwards, though. Finally working to change that. Planning to adjust goals and expectations multiple times as I continue onward to a better place.

Thanks for all of the feedback y'all. Very helpful.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

cdahl383

I believe the BMI charts originate from the 1950's if I'm not mistaken. I think they're somewhat outdated now. I think they may work well for a great deal of people, but certainly not everyone.

For me at 5'11" it says that 179 lbs is the highest I can be in the "healthy" range. I haven't been under 180 lbs since high school. As soon as I hit 21 and started working out I was up to 190 lbs for a long time. As I let myself go over the years I've crept up as high as 228 lbs and generally try to stay below 200 lbs. I know at 228 lbs I was definitely fat for my frame, but at 190 lbs I don't look/feel all that overweight. I'm certainly not ripped at 190 lbs, but definitely not "overweight".

Whenever I see my doctor I ask him about my weight. He'll say looks like you weigh 205 lbs today from your chart. I'll say isn't that kind of high, should I try to lose some weight? He'll say no, you're fine, you're very healthy, everything is good, you dont' have a big fat belly, you have some good muscle mass, you're fine. If you want to lose some, you could, but it's not affecting your health at all. But yet the BMI chart says I'm overweight, so I dont really follow those that much anymore.

I think for my current build/frame that to get "defined" I'd need to get into the 180's or even the the high 170's, but its hard to say a definitive number just yet because as you've mentioned, as you lose weight, you lose not only fat, but "non-fat" like a little muscle, some tissue, skin, water weight, etc. So maybe I'll have to go lower, or not as low, as what my original estimate was. I think when you're trying to transform your body, a weight number is just an estimate, but it will certainly change as you progress. 220 lbs on Arnold's frame vs 220 lbs on my dad's frame are vastly different in terms of appearance haha!

alphal0b0

BUMP to follow along.

SideSteel

Good discussion

55in13

As far as BMI goes, in some parts of the world they are pushing a much simpler system - the largest abdominal circumference (usually around the naval; a little more than pants size) should be less than half your height. Make sense to me, but I am 33/59 now. :bigsmile:

kordell70

bump for later reading.

Safiyandi

Bumping for reference.

chrisdavey

As far as BMI goes, in some parts of the world they are pushing a much simpler system - the largest abdominal circumference (usually around the naval; a little more than pants size) should be less than half your height. Make sense to me, but I am 33/59 now. :bigsmile:

That does sound better. I'm 32/68 and bordering on obese according to bmi at 10% bf

Unknown

This content has been removed.

paprad

tagging

stephv38

Thanks everybody for this great info and respectful presentations!